validate_against_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the categories of conflicts found and implies a non-mutating comparison, but never states whether the tool only reads or can remediate, whether it requires connectivity to the instance, or how large a report can be. Partial disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler; the compare-and-report action is front-loaded and the detection list follows economically.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully sketches the return value ('a conflict report') and its content categories. Given only two optional, well-documented parameters and no annotations, this is close to complete, though a note on read-only semantics would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both endpoint and state_path are fully documented in the schema, including the AIMDB_CONNECT fallback and the default state.toml path. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Compare/Validate) and two specific resources (state.toml and a live AimDB instance), and enumerates what it detects: missing records, buffer type mismatches, capacity differences, connector mismatches. This clearly separates it from mutating siblings like propose_* and read siblings like get_instance_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The validation intent implies when to use it (checking drift between a declared state file and a running instance), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_instance_info. Usage is inferable but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.